onepiecefandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:New Administrators 2014
It has come to our attention that this site is in need of additional admins. Due to a vandal problem in the past few days, and that one of the three admins (I will not say any names) is rather inactive at times, we should elect some new admins to bolster our work forces; we cannot keep regular editors as temp admins for extended periods, it seems just... against the rules. As a secondary opinion, we should discuss whether or not to remove the said inactive admin from the list, once we elected some new admins. 03:25, September 22, 2014 (UTC) Discussion I don't want to be an administrator. Not while the site in this state. For me to be one you current editors need to be gone while new ones pour in. Joekido (talk) 03:29, September 22, 2014 (UTC) I didn't recall inviting you. And aren't you one of the "current editors"? 05:13, September 22, 2014 (UTC) You don't have to invite me, I chose to post my message here. And when I say current users, I exclude myself. BTW people are not responding here Joekido (talk) 05:20, September 22, 2014 (UTC) Regarding Deva, maybe it would be best to just trade in his admin rights for rollback rights? He contributes fairly often, but almost all his edits are in image renaming, something that rollbacks can do now. In the past, I've defended Deva's rights since he was still technically active. But considering how he was just gone this past week during Galaxy's massive vandalism spree, I have serious doubts about how active he really is. Deva, you may come back and see this and have some response like "you guys should have asked me to help" or something like that. But we didn't have to ask Yata or DP, they monitored the activity and knew we had a problem, and I'm sure whoever we elect will be someone who won't need to be asked to watch out for vandals like Galaxy. So Deva, I ask that you step down as an admin and let someone who can commit more time to the job have it. You can trade for rollbacks and still rename images and be a helpful contributor to the wiki. Just let us move on to have more active editors and put this seemingly endless dispute about whether you deserve to be an admin to rest. And how many admins are we looking to elect? Once we figure these issues out, we should move on to the nomination phase. 05:50, September 22, 2014 (UTC) Well, if Deva steps down, then I would suggest 3 new ones to be elected, so we can break ties when admins have to vote on certain issues. 06:23, September 22, 2014 (UTC) "I don't want to be an administrator." Nobody asked you to be one, Joe. And nobody ever will. Anyway, I believe I suggested months ago that Deva gets demoted to rollback user since renaming images is the only thing he ever does on this wiki. Unless he steps down by himself, we can just have poll on his rights later. About adding new admins.. well 3 would be a good number if you can find enough people that want and deserve the position. 07:59, September 22, 2014 (UTC) So is one of these 3 new admins, supposing that Deva steps down, going to get bureaucrat rights? 08:24, September 22, 2014 (UTC) :So it's going be a poll between JSD,Staw,Lel?..also I nominate Joekido.-- I actually want to nominate Zodiaque. 09:26, September 22, 2014 (UTC) Let's keep the nominations out of it for now, and just focus on Deva, since now we know we want 5 total admins. 13:21, September 22, 2014 (UTC) I was not active this past week because I was taking/trying to take care some business and got too preoccupied with that. I did not make a formal announcement in my talk page because I kept thinking "just one more day to end" and couldn't give an exact date. Seeing that it has become an issue I guess that since we approach the end of September it should be it for now. I wouldn't rule out though if it was over within the week. However, I can't say for sure though at this exact moment. I can say with certainty that I'll be available from the start of October. Regarding the number of new administrators we should vote for I believe everyone here believes that at the very least we should elect one to fill in Sff9's position until he returns. This is something that was previously discussed but ultimately put on hold. Concerning the number of any admins on top of that, it will be something decided during this conversation. I will not mention any numbers for now until the discussion really picks up and see how it goes. MasterDeva (talk) 15:00, September 22, 2014 (UTC) :Uh... You do know he stood down, right? He's not getting his rights back unless people ask him to take them back. 23:51, September 22, 2014 (UTC) We don't really have anybody who could make a good admin right now. SeaTerror (talk) 17:59, September 22, 2014 (UTC) JSD says he doesn't want it, I dunno about Kage. How about whoever wants to be an admin, just sign your names below, and we can decide who has the right? That way, we won't have to worry about rejections from nominees. 18:09, September 22, 2014 (UTC) I posted that before I made my way through all the talk pages. Temp admins are fine. I meant we don't have anybody that would make a good permanent right now. Except maybe Calu. SeaTerror (talk) 18:19, September 22, 2014 (UTC) *Supports Calu* I know that, I meant JSD did not want to be perm admin. 18:22, September 22, 2014 (UTC) I'm willing to become a permanent admin if the people so decide. Too bad about JSD, I think he would've been great for the position. 18:41, September 22, 2014 (UTC) No, I'm willing to be a permanent admin. I'm just unwilling to be a temporary admin permanently, if that makes any sense. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I've turned down the chat mod nominations before since that would be too much of a time commitment for me, but I think I can be just as active as our current admins. Personally, I'd say that anyone out of Zodiaque, Awakage, Calua, and Uknownada are qualified for the job. All are good, knowledgeable editors who can manage to keep things civil. 19:30, September 22, 2014 (UTC) In my opinion, an inactive/not so active admin is not that big of a deal, but I'd remove his 'crats rights though... just elect any new admins to have a reasonable amount of them active all the time (like 2-3 more). Just pointing out that we are talking about admin rights, if we are giving 'crats then you should do a separate discussion. Why do you want to have five admins in total, Yata? I'd like to know your reasonings, since we've always done well with only two active admins for years, and had no problems with it. Also, if we're going to nominate people, I would strongly prefer it if we use a similar method from the last time we voted for new admins, instead of people nominating themselves for admins. 23:47, September 22, 2014 (UTC) As far as I'm concerned, we need two more admins. One more is urgently required, and two makes it an odd number to prevent split votes. I support JSD for admin, and have no current preference to the other. 23:51, September 22, 2014 (UTC) Alright, rather than just flailing blindly yet thoughtfully, let's make this simple. We'll consider two people for now, but that can be subject to reduction. Anyone who wants to nominate someone must meet the general poll requirements of working on here for at least three months with at least 300 edits to the mainspace, not including user pages or blogs. Candidates must have been active on here for at least a year with at least 1000 edits not including user pages or blogs. We'll keep the temps in place until the precedings are over and we have new people. Those elected will be given the non-bureaucratic sysop privileges. Nominations can last a week. Anyone who fits the prereqs and wants to nominate someone can drop the name of the person they wish to nominate followed by a short reason why that person was/should be chosen (when I say short, I mean 300 characters, at the very max, or two tweets and some change) in the soon to be created Nominations section. Once that has been done, the nominee must write "I accept" or "I decline" or words to that effect within 24 hours of being nominated otherwise it will be considered void and be subject to removal. Those voided without response can be renominated, but the same time limit will apply again. Should someone be nominated within 24 hours of the section's closing, they will have until the section closes to respond. Once that's done, voting will start and last for another week. See previous admin forums for how that's going to go down. First and second place become admins, third and down get the warm feeling of knowing some people thought them capable. Sound good? Of course it does. 03:34, September 23, 2014 (UTC) :And when voting happens, everyone gets two votes, right? 03:41, September 23, 2014 (UTC) Presumably, yes. That could be subject to change. 03:51, September 23, 2014 (UTC) I wanted 5 admins for 2 reasons: # For good efficiency without having too much admins (3 is not enough, 7 is too much). # In case admins are required to vote on certain matters, it will not end up as ties. There may be others, but these 2 are the primary reasons. 04:55, September 23, 2014 (UTC) By the way, are we to consider that Deva is to be demoted? Because if he wants to keep his position but simply makes regular edits, then we should. 04:57, September 23, 2014 (UTC) Making it three is fine. Seeing as Deva has his own stuff to handle, let's not consider demotion at this time. 04:59, September 23, 2014 (UTC) So we should nominate one more admin to make 4 (once Deva returns to full action)? Because some of us admins may go offline for certain periods of time, and it'd be best to have some extra backups. 05:04, September 23, 2014 (UTC) We have to also decide which ones will be permanent and which ones will only be temp. SeaTerror (talk) 17:49, September 23, 2014 (UTC) :I'm confused, nobody mentioned electing temporary admins... 20:33, September 23, 2014 (UTC) It was mentioned on talk pages. Which I already mentioned here. SeaTerror (talk) 20:43, September 23, 2014 (UTC) Okay, the three current admins are Yata, DP and Deva. How many new admins do you guys want to promote to rank up the total? DP suggests 3 admins is enough, but I do believe 5 would be better. If not, then at least 4, which was our favored number before Sff9 left. 01:19, September 24, 2014 (UTC) Well, personally, I'd like to wait until the discussion for Deva's demotion is over, and then open the nominations, so we'll know how many new admins we'll need. Two admins if Deva keeps his position, three admins if he doesn't keep his position. Unfortunately for us, both nominations and discussion for Deva's demotion is open, so it's a little confusing and I don't know how many admins we should get right now, on account of the uncertain question of Deva keeping his rights or not. Personally, five admins in total sound a little overkill, but I like having an odd number of admins, and I have absolutely no problems with having five admins. 01:49, September 24, 2014 (UTC) Actually we only need 2 since Sff9 was told he would get his adminship back. This would apply even if MasterDeva is demoted. SeaTerror (talk) 01:57, September 24, 2014 (UTC) Sff would only get his adminship back IF he ever wanted to become an admin again, and active enough to be deemed an admin. 02:00, September 24, 2014 (UTC) I'd like an odd number, either 3 or 5 seems ok to me. But obviously, if we don't demote Deva, then I'd say 5, because the way things are now is not ok. And there's no problem with keeping the nominations going while we also discuss Deva's position, as long as we don't start the actual voting until we know how many spots are open. Nominating people shouldn't be affected by the number of slots that are open, but the actual voting would be. 02:20, September 24, 2014 (UTC) Nominations 1) User:Roranoa zoro 15:09, September 23, 2014 (UTC) :*I accept. 2) User:Joekido, User:Staw-Hat Luffy, User:Awaikage or User:MasterDeva(if demoted)-- :*He said "bro accept quick" so ok ;) 15:48, September 23, 2014 (UTC) :*I accept. 16:24, September 23, 2014 (UTC) :* 3) User:JustSomeDude..., User:Uknownada, and User:Videogamep 15:23, September 23, 2014 (UTC) :*I accept. 15:27, September 23, 2014 (UTC) :*I...accept. 21:17, September 23, 2014 (UTC) ::Actually, I think I should drop out of this. I'm not sure I really deserve nor will make use of the title. 13:18, September 24, 2014 (UTC) :* 4) User:Zodiaque 15:47, September 23, 2014 (UTC) :*I accept. 04:18, September 24, 2014 (UTC) 5) User:Calua 15:51, September 23, 2014 (UTC) :*I accept my nomination. 21:40, September 23, 2014 (UTC) 6) User:SeaTerror The Will of Deez (talk) 20:46, September 23, 2014 (UTC) * Wat. I accept. SeaTerror (talk) 22:53, September 23, 2014 (UTC) 7) User:Jademing The Koromo :*I accept the nomination. 00:17, September 24, 2014 (UTC) 8) User:The_Koromo SeaTerror (talk) 23:00, September 23, 2014 (UTC) :*Accepted. Hey, it's worth a shot. 9) User:Ryuzakiforever and User:Kaizoku-Hime 01:18, September 24, 2014 (UTC) :* I decline. This time. 02:28, September 24, 2014 (UTC) :* I accept. 海賊☠姫 (talk) 07:35, September 24, 2014 (UTC) 10) User:OnePieceNation and User:NinjaSheik 14:20, September 24, 2014 (UTC) MasterDeva's Rights So, are we going to keep Deva's rights? As you can see in my previous post, I support a demotion. 15:08, September 23, 2014 (UTC) Read what DP said, Staw. 15:18, September 23, 2014 (UTC) I strongly support removing Deva's admin rights. At the very least, demote him to be a rollback, considering he's been doing pretty much what any rollback are doing, when he's active. 15:52, September 23, 2014 (UTC) I don't want to take Deva's rights away. Taking them away seems cruel to me at this juncture. However, I also strongly believe that he's not being a very good admin when compared to the performance of the other admins. I think there are several candidates who are more capable of being an active and effective admin than Deva who have already been nominated. My main concern is how everything with Deva seems to need be asked for. I don't want an admin who I have to ask to participate in wiki activities, I want one who will be an active participant (not just merely an active editor) without needing to be asked. Every time we've discussed Deva's inactivity, we've been met with some kind of excuse about how he has been busy in real life, and after a certain point, I began to seriously doubt that Deva could ever reach the level of activity (one again, actively pursing admin actions, not being an active editor) that I would find satisfactory. When Sff9 realized that he had too many obligations in real life to keep up with things here, he resigned, and I'm asking you Deva to do the same thing. Honestly ask yourself: "Are my obligations in real life ever really going to decline, and are they really a legitimate excuse?" I really don't mean to disrespect you, Deva, (which is why I don't want to take your rights) but as an editor, I see you have the potential to be a great contributor to this wiki, but my faith in you as an admin just doesn't really exist anymore. I ask for you to seriously think about what would be best for the wiki, not your own self-interest here when you ask yourself if you're fit to be admin. Thanks. 21:52, September 23, 2014 (UTC) Deva rarely edits, and whenever he edits, there's usually a few weeks gap of inactivity between the rare moments of editing. As a regular/rollback user, it would not be a problem at all, but he has responsibilities as an admin, and as such, should treat it as so. He clearly haven't been a responsible admin, being frequently inactivate, coming up with excuses for his inactivity all the time, and always has to be asked for to participate in the community. Seriously, are these actions appropriate for an admin? No, they are not. We need active admins for such a large and active wiki, and Deva's just not that active, nor was he that active for a long time, to take participate in the wiki as an admin, so I'd like to demote him, and replace him with someone who can do the job better, and save us some trouble. Deva'll still be recognized as a highly respected editor who contributed so much to the wiki, even if he is not an admin anymore. If you guys are still so obsessed with keeping Deva's rights, just demote him to a rollback user, he can still do pretty much the same as before, renaming images and the likes. Deva, I recognize that you are probably actually busy with obligations in real life, but you've been inactive for years, due to your life, while saying that you'll be active later on when you'll have more time. Are you seriously keep putting up the pretense of ever being truly active on the wiki as an admin later on forever? It's already been years, and I don't think you'll ever be as active as you once was, or at least, be active enough as an admin. Think about what JSD said, and follow Sff's steps. 01:08, September 24, 2014 (UTC) I can't disagree, Deva. You need to think thoroughly, see how active you can be as an admin, and decide for yourself whether you want to remain an admin or pass your title to someone else. I wouldn't remove your status against your will, that'd be an insult to your hardships in the past. So please tell us what you think. 01:15, September 24, 2014 (UTC) Um, hey all, we might have a problem here... Deva is a bureaucrat. And not even other bcrats can demote other ones. --I'm not a coward I've just never been tested; I like to think if I was I would pass (talk) 02:12, September 24, 2014 (UTC) If the majority of the community agrees to demote a bureaucrat, staffs will demote him for you. 02:14, September 24, 2014 (UTC) :Crats can demote themselves;I dont support Deva's rights being taken away.-- Yeah, 'crats can demote themselves. Also I'm an helper, so I can demote him *cough*I outrank all of you*cough*.